IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 January 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010353 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states he applied for home owners and automobile insurance and was told he was ineligible because he needed to have an honorable characterization of service. He believes his discharge should be upgraded so he can get this insurance. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) ending on 16 October 1970. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. On 11 July 1962, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He was honorably discharged on 13 September 1962 for the purpose of immediately enlisting in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) 632.20 (Track Mechanic). In November 1962, he was award a secondary MOS 11E (Armor Crewman). 3. Records show the applicant served a 13-month tour of duty in the Republic of Korea, a 12-month tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam, and then went to Alaska for his third tour of duty. 4. On 13 August 1970, the applicant's commander notified him that he had initiated elimination proceedings against him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness or Unsuitability) due to displaying a total disregard for his financial obligations. He had established a pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts. The company commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service for unfitness and be furnished a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 5. On 5 October 1970, the appropriate separation authority approved the elimination request and directed that the applicant be discharged under the regulatory provisions cited above with a general under honorable conditions characterization and a separation program number (SPN) 28F (Unfitness - established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts). 6. On 16 October 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 5 years, 4 months, and 7 days of creditable active duty service and had attained the rank of specialist five, pay grade E-5. 7. On 19 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board determined his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade. 8. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. The regulation provided that members were subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) states in paragraph 3-7a that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. The applicant's desire to obtain insurance does not justify upgrading his discharge. 4. In view of the above, the applicant’s request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010353 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010353 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1